Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Out of Walder's 22 sons 5 already died because of the Red Wedding - one killed on the wedding, three were baked into pie (by the father of a wedding guest, that was killed by Freys), one got killed by LSH. And sooner or later the remaining 17 will also suffer repercussions for Walder's actions. And it wasn't even Walder's own plan. That's not smart.

The smartest man in Westeros is Littlefinger, after him Varys, Bloodraven, Tyrion, Euron, Tywin, many others, and only after all of them, near the end, is Walder. Littlefinger used Walder and Freys as a scapegoats, that will be punished, for what they did, while they were manipulated thru Tywin by Littlefinger, who was the real mastermind behind the Red Wedding.

Share on other sites

It's just a theory. I think that he did it while Harrenhal was occupied by Roose Bolton and rivermen of Aenys Frey, and when Joffrey granted Harrenhal to Littlefinger, and named him Lord Paramount of the Trident. Why him? What exactly have he done for Lannisters to earn it? Just think about it.

A lot of things, done by Lannisters (or others), were actually orchestrated by Littlefinger, such as Sansa's marriage to Tyrion, Margaery's marriage to Joffrey, Joffrey's poisoning on his wedding (it was planned by LF even prior he offered that marriage alliance to Tyrells), the Red Wedding, the Purple Wedding, making Starks to oppose Lannisters, Ned's execution, etc.

Cersei and Varys wanted to send Ned to The Wall. So, whose suggestion was it, that caused Joffrey to execute Ned? I don't think, that this is Joffrey's own words - "My mother bids me let Lord Eddard take the black, and Lady Sansa has begged mercy for her father." "But they have the soft hearts of women. So long as I am your king, treason shall never go unpunished." His uncle(father) is a Kingslayer, and he is unpunished. His grandfather is a traitor, and by his order were murdered innocent children (Aegon and Rhaenys). His official father is a rebel and an usurper, and his mother is ... well, she's Cersei . So, him saying about unpunished treason, is just ridiculous. He wasn't raised as an honorable person, those are not his feelings, and thus, are also not his own words. So, someone else suggested to him this idea, and when he revealed to people, that he decided to execute Ned, in that speech he was using someone else's words. And who that could have been? - Not Varys, not Cersei, not Tywin. So who else is left? -> Littlefinger. He's the one for whom Ned's death was necessary, because without it, the rest of his plan would have fallen apart. Thus, it was his idea and suggestion to Joffrey to execute Ned. Furthermore, most likely it was also Littlefinger's idea for Joffrey to send a catspaw with Valyrian dagger to kill Bran. It wasn't necessary for that assassin to use specifically this weapon. Thus, this weapon was used exactly because it showed Lannisters' trace. Also, even though supposedly it was Joffrey, who had sent that assassin after Bran, though who hired that man? It's unlikely, that Joffrey did it himself, or that, when they were going to Winterfell, Joffrey just happen to take with him an assassin, just in case (). And this is a hint, about who was the real master of that man -> "Ah, but when the queen proclaims one king and the Hand another, whose peace do they protect?" Lord Petyr flicked at the dagger with his finger, setting it spinning in place. Round and round it went, wobbling as it turned. When at last it slowed to a stop,the blade pointed at Littlefinger. "Why, there's your answer," he said, smiling. "They follow the man who pays them." It was Joffrey, who had sent that catspaw, but it was Littlefinger, who was paying to that assassin. So, even though the Red Wedding was a result of conspiracy between Lannisters, Freys and Boltons, the shadow figure, that was behind them, is Littlefinger. Though it's not a fact, it's just my theory.

Edited June 20 by Megorova

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Certainly disliked, but there is no danger of them being put under siege. They broke a custom and will likely have some members punished, but the idea of the realm all going to war over it is an over the top wet dream by some Stark fans.

The Freys didn't just "break a custom", they betrayed their closest neighbours, killed their King and their men after promising them safety. You don't think the Riverlords are desperate for revenge? You don't think that the only thing stopping them from enacting that revenge is the fact that the Lannisters hold their kinsmen hostage?

Are the Charlton's and Vypren's their closest neighbours? Both of those Houses were on Walders' side.

1 hour ago, UnFit Finlay said:

killed their King

He was more pretender than King.

1 hour ago, UnFit Finlay said:

and their men after promising them safety.

Yup, that was the custom they broke. The people inside the Twins were promised safety and never received it.

1 hour ago, UnFit Finlay said:

You don't think the Riverlords are desperate for revenge?

Some will be desperate for it, most notably Blackwood and Piper.

Some would not care. The Riverlords mostly did not attend, it was primarily Nothern nobles.

Thirty-five hundred they were, thirty-five hundred who had been blooded in the Whispering Wood, who had reddened their swords at the Battle of the Camps, at Oxcross, Ashemark, and the Crag, and all through the gold-rich hills of the Lannister west. Aside from her brother Edmure's modest retinue of friends, the lords of the Trident had remained to hold the riverlands while the king retook the north.

1 hour ago, UnFit Finlay said:

You don't think that the only thing stopping them from enacting that revenge is the fact that the Lannisters hold their kinsmen hostage?

I think many things, such as them not being in a positon to get revenge. The Blackwoods were down to 500 men most of the Houses are currently spent, they simply don't have the numbers or the unity to take on the Freys.

1 hour ago, UnFit Finlay said:

If those hostages are freed then what, exactly, is protecting them?

Their larger army, their well protected castles.

1 hour ago, UnFit Finlay said:

They aren't merely disliked either. They are despised.

Again, some despise, some dislike, some will be indifferent and some will be allies.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not sure where you're coming up with this. He was about as legitimate of a king as you can get in the feudal tradition, having been acclaimed by his vassals.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Some will be desperate for it, most notably Blackwood and Piper.

Some would not care. The Riverlords mostly did not attend, it was primarily Nothern nobles.

This isn't true, at all. Patrek Mallister was taken hostage in addition to Marq Piper. Black Walder Frey kills a Vance, presumably a highborn one, since he's in the main hall during the wedding feast. So you're looking at 4 important vassals right there, let alone the Tullys, who are going to be holding a grudge.

Moreover, it's almost certain that a large number of Riverlander commoners died, since any House not in on the plot (e.g. not a Bolton or Frey) was likely to have men slaughtered in the yard. The Riverlords may have yielded, much as the Northerners have to Roose Bolton, but it's sure bet that there is widespread discontent with Frey rule, the same as all the Northerners hate the Freys (and the Boltons) even as they grudgingly restrain themselves from open revolt.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I think many things, such as them not being in a positon to get revenge. The Blackwoods were down to 500 men most of the Houses are currently spent, they simply don't have the numbers or the unity to take on the Freys.

You could say the same about the Northern Houses, and yet... there they are, revolting en masse or planning to betray. The only Houses loyal to the Boltons are the Dustins; the rest are being coerced or are actively in revolt or plotting it.

It's very likely that the Riverlanders feel the same. Jaime's chapters make it pretty clear that there is a ton of support for any insurgent force, even if it's only tacit. We just don't have the same interior POVs there to show us the evidence of a plot or resistance movement. No Tywin Lannister to inspire fear, and Walder Frey was hated even before all this shit went down.

7 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Their larger army, their well protected castles.

Again, some despise, some dislike, some will be indifferent and some will be allies.

It's unlikely to the point of absurdity that Walder Frey will have any allies. There is only one other Riverlander House currently "supporting" him, and that's the Brackens. Who clearly are (a) serving the Lannisters and not the Freys, and (b) seem to be taking advantage to pursue their own vendetta, not prop up the Frey regime.

Walder Frey betrayed essentially the only sacred principle in Westeros. While not everyone will rise up against the Freys, it's a foregone conclusion that essentially no one will support him. As Tywin notes, he did what he did only because he got assurance of protection from the inevitable retribution; but the man to whom he appealed to that protection is now dead, and his House is imploding faster than the Freys are.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I do agree that Walder is a smart man. But the Red Wedding wasn't a smart idea. If it was me behind the Red wedding I would have instead waited for the festivities to be over and order my army of sons to go into the King's chambers and slit his throat and take the rest of the Northmen prisoners, whilst also killing the host of drunken and sleepy Northmen outside my keep. Then I mount the direwolfs head on the dead king, strap his body to a little boat and send him down the trident, so the people of the Riverlands can see their would be King.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am going to go Petyr Baelish and Varys and the smartest known Westerosi, with Tywin coming in third (bracing myself for incoming comments about the Twincest). Walder is certainly an opportunist.

For everyone who is saying that the Twins are a garbage dump in the middle of nowhere, it is pretty obvious it is not. We have canon talking about how they have become wealthy via their toll, as they are in between Riverrun and Winterfell. The animosity with other houses is that they are a younger house with less history (although being "young" after 600 years seems ridiculous imo).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

With the Red Wedding he has managed to give his house many more enemies and many fewer friends than they used to have, in addition to making the name Frey synonymous with "treachery".

As for having 22 sons, he has not provided the means for their support. Which means that, when he dies, there is going to be a battle royale between them for what remains of House Frey, and it is going to be quite ugly. I expect more Freys may be killed by other Freys than Lady Stoneheart could hope to deal with.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not sure where you're coming up with this. He was about as legitimate of a king as you can get in the feudal tradition,

Hardly.

He did not inherit his crown, his army crowned him (making him more of a Warlord)

He did not pass on his crown, Robb's been dead for a year in the books, the vast majority of his vassals have moved on and sworn oaths to new kings.

He was not recognized as a King by any foreign power

He did not set foot in the North while he was King of it, another King controlled 'his' capital for much of Robb's short reign

He had no currency or government.

During his 'reign' he was one of four kings claiming to be King of the North

By most terminology Robb would be seen as a pretender rather than an actual King. He fails most Kingly criteria. His own brother even refers to him as such.

"They north rode with Robb, bled with him, died for him. They have supped on grief and death, and now you come to offer them another serving. Do you blame them if they hang back? Forgive me, Your Grace, but some will look at you and see only another doomed pretender."

He was no successful in his bid to win his throne, he could not get the Iron Throne to recognize his legitimacy, nor any other sovereign nation nor even any other pretender or warlord.

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 8:36 PM, cpg2016 said:

having been acclaimed by his vassals.

By his army, not his Vassals. The majority of his lords did not get a say in it, his army crowned him and most went along with the army. That is not a King, that is a Warlord calling himself a King.

Many warlords do actually become legitimate Kings who pass on their crowns to their heirs, Robb was not one of them, Robb was a pretender fighting, along with four others, for the North.

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 8:36 PM, cpg2016 said:

This isn't true, at all.

Yes it is true. Do you not understand they 'mostly did not attend'. Most of Riverland nobles did not attend, Cat points this out.

You seem to be confused or just looking for an argument (quelle surprise) but at no point did I say no Riverand nobles attended, I said few did. Well actually I quoted Cat on this

Aside from her brother Edmure's modest retinue of friends, the lords of the Trident had remained to hold the riverlands while the king retook the north

Is Cat lying? Are you better informed that one of the actual characters in the book?

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 8:36 PM, cpg2016 said:

Moreover, it's almost certain that a large number of Riverlander commoners died,

By all means quote it. Don't rely on your own headcannon to win a discussion. Use actual evidence from the books to back up your claim.

First of all how many do you think is large as lets not waste time on semantics. State how many Riverland soldiers died at the Red Wedding and then try to back it up and prove Cat to be lying.

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 8:36 PM, cpg2016 said:

You could say the same about the Northern Houses, and yet... there they are, revolting en masse

Hardly. This is a hugely hyperbolic statement. The North is clearly split, characterizing them as revolting en masse is either you being deliberately disingenuous or not understanding the words you are using.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hardly. This is a hugely hyperbolic statement. The North is clearly split, characterizing them as revolting en masse is either you being deliberately disingenuous or not understanding the words you are using.

Tbh they are kinda revolting en masse. Yeah the North is split but nonetheless they are revolting against the Iron Throne (or more like against the Boltons). Having half a kingdom split on rebellion is still considered as revolting en masse. If i was a King/lord and half my kingdom was thrown into rebellion i would be pissing me self.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Exactly, they are split. They can't be revolting en masse when the North is hugely fractured.

Many are, many are not. The Boltons have a fair amount of support, there is also a small part of the North who have done nothing during all this.

To characterize the North as revolting en masse against the Iron Throne is disingenuous.

First of all its not half the kingdom, there is around 5-6k on each side at Winterfell.

But still if I was the lord/king of said land and half my kingdom revolted i would be very worried. I wouldnt go around saying "eh, its only half my kingdom thats up in revolt, and its not like other lords are plotting my demise"

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

You'll find most peasants in the North, like any other region, could not give two shits to who they pay their taxes to, they just want an end to the war.

Fastest way to end the war is for them to join their respective lords armies and fight as if they couldn't wait till the next harvest. Plus its basically winter in the North, some of these peasants are bored and are probably lacking a lot on food. So what to do when you are starving and your lord is at war? Pledge your pitchfork to your lord and go fight, instead of sitting around waiting to starve or wait till a winter fever catches.

Share on other sites

The Freys didn't just "break a custom", they betrayed their closest neighbours, killed their King and their men after promising them safety. You don't think the Riverlords are desperate for revenge? You don't think that the only thing stopping them from enacting that revenge is the fact that the Lannisters hold their kinsmen hostage?

If those hostages are freed then what, exactly, is protecting them?

They aren't merely disliked either. They are despised.

And Jaime has already asked for the prisoners in the name of the crown, so.

AFfC, Jaime

“But . . . where should I go?”
“To hell or home, as you prefer. See that you are not in camp when the sun comes up. You may take your queen of whores, but not that crown of hers.” Jaime turned from Ser Ryman to his son. “Edwyn, I am giving you your father’s command. Try not to be so stupid as your sire.”
“That ought not pose much difficulty, my lord.”
“Send word to Lord Walder. The crown requires all his prisoners.” Jaime waved his golden hand. “Ser Lyle, bring him.”

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

But still if I was the lord/king of said land and half my kingdom revolted i would be very worried.

But half the kingdom of the North has not revolted. Stannis has a couple of thousand Northmen in his army, less than the Northern army Roose took home with him.

We are talking a very, very small part of the population of the North revolting, to call it en masse is just wrong. I get that its a bitch to be arguing semantics but the North is not rebelling en masse.

7 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Fastest way to end the war is for them to join their respective lords armies and fight as if they couldn't wait till the next harvest. Plus its basically winter in the North, some of these peasants are bored and are probably lacking a lot on food. So what to do when you are starving and your lord is at war? Pledge your pitchfork to your lord and go fight, instead of sitting around waiting to starve or wait till a winter fever catches.

Well I'm only commenting on what we've actually seen in the books as of the sample chapters of TWOW.

You are speculating on something that may or may not happen, but I can only go on what has actually happened. You are arguing your headcannon of what will happen, I'm arguing the text.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is a feudal society and they live and die by reputation. What Walder Frey did was the equivalent of setting fire to his house in order to deal with a burglar.

As a result all of his sons and daughters will find no shelter, no marriages and no service. They are doomed to a life of penury outside of the main house. The main house might have survived on its power alone had there been peace. Now the Freys are pariahs and no one in their right mind will deal with any of them in good faith even if it is in their best interest.

Despite all of the rationalisations the Red Wedding was a mob hit, not a strategic move and in fact counter productive to all involved with the possible exception of the Boltons. And like the Blackfish said it does stink of Tywin Lannister.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

By his army, not his Vassals. The majority of his lords did not get a say in it, his army crowned him and most went along with the army. That is not a King, that is a Warlord calling himself a King.

Many warlords do actually become legitimate Kings who pass on their crowns to their heirs, Robb was not one of them, Robb was a pretender fighting, along with four others, for the North.﻿

He's a feudal monarch. His vassals are military in nature. At the very least, Robb's acclamation as King of the North is about as legitimate as you can possibly get. You don't seem to understand the nature of feudal kingship, or feudal relationships. These aren't absolute monarchs, and while real world kings are anointed and therefore divine, that obviously doesn't apply here. But the basis of the social and political structure are the interlocking webs of relationships, of protection and service, of mutual obligations. Pepin I was explicitly elected king by his magnates and confirmed by the Pope. More to the point, the English Coronation ceremony is quite explicit in that it requires the assembled clergymen, magnates, and other attendees to recognize the king/queen and do homage. Formal investiture as monarch is inextricably bound up in being literally recognized as monarch by the powerful men of the realm. Moreover, it also explicitly invokes a reciprocity of obligation; protection and justice in return for loyal service.

Joffrey has violated the terms of his feudal obligations to the Northmen and Riverlanders. In a more de jure sense, none of these men ever swore to Joffrey in the first place, and so are not legally his vassals anyway. Normally it wouldn't matter and be assumed, but first off, Joffrey is not legitimate, and secondly, both the Northerners and Riverlords have legitimate grievances against the Iron Throne and are within their rights to not renew that feudal obligation of service.

As for the number of lords... well, of the Northerners, the Karstarks, Mormonts, Glovers, and Umbers are vocally for Robb. We hear no one except Catelyn speak against Robb's acclamation as King. That is 4 of the 11 principal houses. Five if you count the Manderlys, who are explicitly supportive of the move.

Lets move on to the Riverlanders. Blackwood and Bracken are both there in person. So is Jason Mallister. Marq Piper is his father's heir; he cannot legally bind his house to a cause but under the circumstances it seems clear that this is decision reflective of the Riverlands as a whole. And Edmure, of course, who is even more reasonably empowered to make decision on behalf of his House since his father isn't in his right wits. So actually the balance swings in quite the opposite direction. We have 3 named Riverland lords who are in attendance in comparison to only 1 we know isn't there. The remainder cannot be committed either way except to say that they eventually consent. So yeah.... it's quite clear that Robb's kingship is legitimate, far more so than Joffrey or Renly's.

Again, Robert Baratheon isn't king because of his Targaryen blood; that is part of the reason he is chosen to be king by his peers in the Rebellion, to keep the realm together. He takes the throne by conquest - if the only way to become a king is to conquer it or inherit it,

On 7/4/2019 at 10:04 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Hardly.

He did not inherit his crown, his army crowned him (making him more of a Warlord)

He did not pass on his crown, Robb's been dead for a year in the books, the vast majority of his vassals have moved on and sworn oaths to new kings.

He was not recognized as a King by any foreign power

He did not set foot in the North while he was King of it, another King controlled 'his' capital for much of Robb's short reign

He had no currency or government.

During his 'reign' he was one of four kings claiming to be King of the North

Some of these are obviously ridiculous. Aegon claimed to be King of Westeros without having conquered Dorne? Does that mean he wasn't a king?

One does not have to set foot in a country to rule it. Likewise, you do not understand medieval political structures in the slightest. There is no "capital". Government is centered around the person of the king. Wherever Robb is, that is were the Court is. That's the capital. The evolution of capitals in fixed places comes later, with the decline of itinerant courts. When it is said that a king that cannot hold is castle is no king at all, they aren't speaking legally. They're speaking to the aforementioned expectations of lieges, which you so clearly have not grasped. A king that cannot protect his own patrimony is going to be assumed to not be able to protect those of his vassals.

And Robb does have a government. Wyman Manderly proposes a new mint and a new fleet, and we know at the very least that the fleet gets built. We see Robb appointing his own military officials, e.g. the Blackfish being named Warden of the Southern Marches. How is this any different than the more established governments in Kings Landing? He is in the process of minting his own currency. He is raising revenue and embarking on royal building projects (e.g. the fleet). He has a deputy in Winterfell who is dispensing justice. He dispatches diplomats to foreign powers (Theon to Balon and Catelyn to Renly). What more do you want? Judicial, military, economic, foreign policy functions... just because they're in an embryonic doesn't mean they don't exist.

And by the way, Robb HAS passed on his crown. He wrote a will and named an heir. No one happens to know that, yet, but that doesn't mean he hasn't passed on his crown. Robert didn't pass on his crown, either - was he not a king?

On 7/4/2019 at 10:04 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Yes it is true. Do you not understand they 'mostly did not attend'. Most of Riverland nobles did not attend, Cat points this out.

You seem to be confused or just looking for an argument (quelle surprise) but at no point did I say no Riverand nobles attended, I said few did. Well actually I quoted Cat on this

Aside from her brother Edmure's modest retinue of friends, the lords of the Trident had remained to hold the riverlands while the king retook the north

Is Cat lying? Are you better informed that one of the actual characters in the book?

You are saying that the Riverlords don't care. I am disagreeing. Many of them have men who are slaughtered. We know the Brackens and Blackwoods are pissed. We know the Pipers and Mallisters are pissed. Every named House is given a cause for grievance; the preponderance of the evidence suggests that yes, most Houses had people or vassals there. A noble or at least knightly Vance is killed; ditto a dozen Brackens and a Piper. A "modest" retinue of friends could be over a dozen people, and given the politics, probably includes members of many noble Houses of the Riverlands. Catelyn doesn't tell us one way or another. All I'm saying is that every Riverlord we've met (except the Freys, obviously) have, to a man, been upset about the Red Wedding. Most of them have said something to the effect of "I lost men there." What you aren't grasping is that for even a minor knight or landholder in service to one of these lords to be slaughtered because of that fact, is and insult and an injury to whoever their lord is.

On 7/4/2019 at 10:04 PM, Bernie Mac said:

By all means quote it. Don't rely on your own headcannon to win a discussion. Use actual evidence from the books to back up your claim.

First of all how many do you think is large as lets not waste time on semantics. State how many Riverland soldiers died at the Red Wedding and then try to back it up and prove Cat to be lying.

We know a Vance dies. We know a Mallister and a Piper are taken hostage, and the men of the at least the latter slain. We know that a dozen Brackens are killed. Not commoners, mind you, because Jonos Bracken says "men of my own blood."

So no, I cannot quote you a specific number of dead. Nor can you. So you cannot say that thousands weren't killed, either. What we have is common sense and logical inference. We also know that Catelyn is wrong. Not lying, but not telling us everything, which is reasonable. A random bowman is not going to be in "Edmure's modest retinue of friends". Rather, the forces being sent north may either contain Riverlander elements, or that modest retinue of friends is bringing a substantial number of retainers with them. Or both. The combination of the presence of a dozen Brackens makes the combination more likely. Edmure has his buddies, and they some men of their own, but also there are additional members of these households along.

And lets recall what we're discussing - who will be eager for revenge against Walder Frey. Right now, that includes every single Riverlord for whom we have a point of view excepting Tytos Blackwood, who as the most partisan of Robb's Riverlander supporters, can be assumed to not be pleased with Lord Frey.

On 7/4/2019 at 10:04 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Hardly. This is a hugely hyperbolic statement. The North is clearly split, characterizing them as revolting en masse is either you being deliberately disingenuous or not understanding the words you are using.

Hmm, lets see, shall we? As you said earlier, textual evidence is best, and you're asserting something in the face of what the text says.

House Manderly and Glover are actively plotting to betray the Boltons. This is not open for discussion.

House Flint, Norrey, and Wull are all supporting Stannis, explicitly to get revenge no behalf of the Starks.

House Mormont is still explicitly loyal to the Starks.

House Umber is half-supporting the Boltons, but explicitly only because they have a captive, and that without that, they'd turn on them. So not only in revolt but obviously by choice, not some crazy schism that doesn't reflect the wishes of the House.

House Karstark outright against the Boltons, both de jure and now de facto as of Winds of Winter. House Hornwood is suspected of disloyalty as well. So is House Cerwyn, which has men fighting for both sides.

So going through it, we see that it is indeed as I said. Roose Bolton has the loyalty of one, and maybe two, noble Houses in the North besides his own (Dustin and potentially Ryswell). You are welcome to dispute this, but as you said - we have to trust the characters in the novel as far as we hear their thoughts and observations, and what we hear is that all the above Houses have no loyalty and no small amount of resentment towards the Boltons for their role in the Red Wedding, the Hornwood Crisis, and so on.